Harvard President resigns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So are all these academics at the top of their game just rank cheaters? I’m feeling sort of stupid for not going on for a PhD now, which I didn’t do because I was wary of the amount of work involved. It would have been a lot easier if I’d realized I just had to copy other people’s work.

Not unless you're from a rich family or a favorite of the university administration. A regular PhD candidate getting caught plagiarizing is kicked out of school and bad mouthed during reference checks for eternity.

Right but it looks like a lot of them aren’t caught, and the cheating seems to be endemic. I’m now wondering how many of these folks who are (for instance) well-known academic authors and speakers are basically just cheating grifters. The percentage hit of senior academics who cheated appears to be quite high.

Now that plagiarism checking has been weaponized by Bill Ackman and others, expect more academics to be outed. Ackman has already stated in a recent tweet that the MIT president and the entire MIT faculty are next. (He’s pissed about the attacks on his wife and apparently wants to exact his revenge in this manner).

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-05/ackman-wants-plagiarism-checks-on-mit-faculty-after-wife-accused

I actually think it’s probably a good thing to figure out just how many of these academics cheated their way into their jobs. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I’m genuinely shocked at how widespread this seems to be. I had always thought of academia as being very strictly against cheating, given what they do to students who cheat. But we’ve now had two presidents (!!) of two major schools (Harvard and Stanford!) resign for plagiarism and data falsification. Are all academics cheating? How widespread is this?

Plagiarism is hard to catch unless it is egregious and blatant. You have to really look for it. The academic folk who rise to the top administratively tend to have good political and schmoozimg skills and/or they are from wealthy and connected families. They are rarely the top scientists or scholars

Technology will solve the problem for us. It’s already a lot easier to catch.

Hopefully all academic publications will be reviewed for plagiarism soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI advocates would be well advised to forget about Claudine Gay. Harvard didn't vet her credentials well and let's face it, some hires just don't work out. If progressives make her the poster girl for DEI, then they are making a mistake and will only have themselves to blame when the whole concept becomes discredited.

+1
I find it beyond appalling that Gay is blaming her resignation on "racism." Seriously?? Biden was caught plagiarizing and last I checked, he's a white man. Anyone can be a plagiarist, including Claudine Gay.

Agreed. Even the wife of the main anti-plagiarism crusader can be a plagiarist as well.

Yes. At least she apologized right away instead of denying the facts and blaming the accusations on "racism".

If she were president of a major university then of course she should be forced to resign, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So are all these academics at the top of their game just rank cheaters? I’m feeling sort of stupid for not going on for a PhD now, which I didn’t do because I was wary of the amount of work involved. It would have been a lot easier if I’d realized I just had to copy other people’s work.

Not unless you're from a rich family or a favorite of the university administration. A regular PhD candidate getting caught plagiarizing is kicked out of school and bad mouthed during reference checks for eternity.

Right but it looks like a lot of them aren’t caught, and the cheating seems to be endemic. I’m now wondering how many of these folks who are (for instance) well-known academic authors and speakers are basically just cheating grifters. The percentage hit of senior academics who cheated appears to be quite high.

Now that plagiarism checking has been weaponized by Bill Ackman and others, expect more academics to be outed. Ackman has already stated in a recent tweet that the MIT president and the entire MIT faculty are next. (He’s pissed about the attacks on his wife and apparently wants to exact his revenge in this manner).

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-05/ackman-wants-plagiarism-checks-on-mit-faculty-after-wife-accused

I actually think it’s probably a good thing to figure out just how many of these academics cheated their way into their jobs. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I’m genuinely shocked at how widespread this seems to be. I had always thought of academia as being very strictly against cheating, given what they do to students who cheat. But we’ve now had two presidents (!!) of two major schools (Harvard and Stanford!) resign for plagiarism and data falsification. Are all academics cheating? How widespread is this?

Plagiarism is hard to catch unless it is egregious and blatant. You have to really look for it. The academic folk who rise to the top administratively tend to have good political and schmoozimg skills and/or they are from wealthy and connected families. They are rarely the top scientists or scholars

Technology will solve the problem for us. It’s already a lot easier to catch.

Hopefully all academic publications will be reviewed for plagiarism soon.

Is there a universal definition of plagiarism? In the music industry, people borrow from each other all the time - without attribution. The same for the art world. The claim is that such musicians and artists were "influences". Copyright law provides some limit on this practice, but plagiarism seems like a much looser standard to apply. This isn't to justify what Gay did - she clearly failed to follow proper attribution rules. Original thinking takes a lot more work than she was willing to put in during her academic career. I've seem similar types in other professions. They put in the bare minimum in order to move into administrator positions. In the legal profession, some lawyers do a clerkship, practice for 4-5 years, then use connections to become a judge in a lower court somewhere to get judicial experience and work their way up the judicial ladder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So are all these academics at the top of their game just rank cheaters? I’m feeling sort of stupid for not going on for a PhD now, which I didn’t do because I was wary of the amount of work involved. It would have been a lot easier if I’d realized I just had to copy other people’s work.

Not unless you're from a rich family or a favorite of the university administration. A regular PhD candidate getting caught plagiarizing is kicked out of school and bad mouthed during reference checks for eternity.

Right but it looks like a lot of them aren’t caught, and the cheating seems to be endemic. I’m now wondering how many of these folks who are (for instance) well-known academic authors and speakers are basically just cheating grifters. The percentage hit of senior academics who cheated appears to be quite high.

Now that plagiarism checking has been weaponized by Bill Ackman and others, expect more academics to be outed. Ackman has already stated in a recent tweet that the MIT president and the entire MIT faculty are next. (He’s pissed about the attacks on his wife and apparently wants to exact his revenge in this manner).

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-05/ackman-wants-plagiarism-checks-on-mit-faculty-after-wife-accused

I actually think it’s probably a good thing to figure out just how many of these academics cheated their way into their jobs. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I’m genuinely shocked at how widespread this seems to be. I had always thought of academia as being very strictly against cheating, given what they do to students who cheat. But we’ve now had two presidents (!!) of two major schools (Harvard and Stanford!) resign for plagiarism and data falsification. Are all academics cheating? How widespread is this?

Plagiarism is hard to catch unless it is egregious and blatant. You have to really look for it. The academic folk who rise to the top administratively tend to have good political and schmoozimg skills and/or they are from wealthy and connected families. They are rarely the top scientists or scholars

Technology will solve the problem for us. It’s already a lot easier to catch.

Hopefully all academic publications will be reviewed for plagiarism soon.

Is there a universal definition of plagiarism? In the music industry, people borrow from each other all the time - without attribution. The same for the art world. The claim is that such musicians and artists were "influences". Copyright law provides some limit on this practice, but plagiarism seems like a much looser standard to apply. This isn't to justify what Gay did - she clearly failed to follow proper attribution rules. Original thinking takes a lot more work than she was willing to put in during her academic career. I've seem similar types in other professions. They put in the bare minimum in order to move into administrator positions. In the legal profession, some lawyers do a clerkship, practice for 4-5 years, then use connections to become a judge in a lower court somewhere to get judicial experience and work their way up the judicial ladder.

All universities have a code of conduct that defines plagiarism, so you don’t need to worry about a generic definition.

Gay’s work ran afoul of Harvard’s own code of conduct and plagiarism guidelines. The Harvard Crimson has reported extensively on this.

[Anonymous]

1. There are many examples of genocide being suggested through signs and symbols. It's not clear that anyone is quoted as saying "let's go genocide all the Jews." So as someone who supports Gay's ouster, her comment that "context matters" is problematic. She wouldn't have said for example, "I don't know why the white supremacists were carrying tiki torches. Maybe they were headed to a luau." But she is defending this kind of behavior when Jews are the target. No Bueno.

2. Can't remember the question

3. It's okay to be something other than an academic or even a bad academic if you bring other skills. I had no issues with Gay prior to 7/10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. There are many examples of genocide being suggested through signs and symbols. It's not clear that anyone is quoted as saying "let's go genocide all the Jews." So as someone who supports Gay's ouster, her comment that "context matters" is problematic. She wouldn't have said for example, "I don't know why the white supremacists were carrying tiki torches. Maybe they were headed to a luau." But she is defending this kind of behavior when Jews are the target. No Bueno. . .

Just did a very cursory DDG search on Harvard pro Palestinian protest; a few signs read:

“When people are occupied, resistance is justified”

“One solution, Revolution “

“From the River to the Sea”

“We stand with the Palestinian resistance “

“By any means necessary “

“Decolonization is not a metaphor “


Several of these campus slogans are direct calls for genocide (“from the river to the sea” - lifted directly from Hamas: a designated terrorist organization). Others are more subtle calls for violence.

All of these protests violate the standard, which is “hostile learning environment.”

While students must be free to express their views on public university grounds (and they SHOULD be allowed at privates like the Ivies), the slogans above clearly create a hostile learning environment for Jewish students.

The fact these Ivy presidents could not even express opposition to genocide of Jewish people is enough to justify their complete dismissal. In Gay’s case, she was not even docked pay; she was merely moved around among the Harvard elite.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

If only we could all apply the same sense of outrage that is exhibited here regarding ethical breaches in academia, to ethical breaches in our highest levels of government: Supreme Court ethics violations and out-in-the open grifting of a president while in office (see thread on new House report on payments to Trump by foreign entities while he was president).

This has been a great and eye-opening discussion, but I don't get why some forms of cheating are more bothersome to people than other types.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If only we could all apply the same sense of outrage that is exhibited here regarding ethical breaches in academia, to ethical breaches in our highest levels of government: Supreme Court ethics violations and out-in-the open grifting of a president while in office (see thread on new House report on payments to Trump by foreign entities while he was president).

This has been a great and eye-opening discussion, but I don't get why some forms of cheating are more bothersome to people than other types.

Trump is being prosecuted in several courts. Gay isn't. It's hard to understand your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. There are many examples of genocide being suggested through signs and symbols. It's not clear that anyone is quoted as saying "let's go genocide all the Jews." So as someone who supports Gay's ouster, her comment that "context matters" is problematic. She wouldn't have said for example, "I don't know why the white supremacists were carrying tiki torches. Maybe they were headed to a luau." But she is defending this kind of behavior when Jews are the target. No Bueno. . .

Just did a very cursory DDG search on Harvard pro Palestinian protest; a few signs read:

“When people are occupied, resistance is justified”

“One solution, Revolution “

“From the River to the Sea”

“We stand with the Palestinian resistance “

“By any means necessary “

“Decolonization is not a metaphor “


Several of these campus slogans are direct calls for genocide (“from the river to the sea” - lifted directly from Hamas: a designated terrorist organization). Others are more subtle calls for violence.

All of these protests violate the standard, which is “hostile learning environment.”

While students must be free to express their views on public university grounds (and they SHOULD be allowed at privates like the Ivies), the slogans above clearly create a hostile learning environment for Jewish students.

The fact these Ivy presidents could not even express opposition to genocide of Jewish people is enough to justify their complete dismissal. In Gay’s case, she was not even docked pay; she was merely moved around among the Harvard elite.

Great post. Also, I do agree with Gay that context matters. In Gay's case, the context is pretty damning. This is an institution where misgendering someone would be a clear violation. So it's actually worse. When Gay was asked what she meant, she further explained that if calls were directed at an individual they would violate the code. Well, you can't genocide one person. You murder them. So if you listen to what she said, you can't suggest murdering just one, you have to suggest murdering all of them and then it's fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If only we could all apply the same sense of outrage that is exhibited here regarding ethical breaches in academia, to ethical breaches in our highest levels of government: Supreme Court ethics violations and out-in-the open grifting of a president while in office (see thread on new House report on payments to Trump by foreign entities while he was president).

This has been a great and eye-opening discussion, but I don't get why some forms of cheating are more bothersome to people than other types.

Trump is being prosecuted in several courts. Gay isn't. It's hard to understand your point.

Trump is not being prosecuted for ethics violations--he is being prosecuted for criminal ones. This discussion is about ethics violations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If only we could all apply the same sense of outrage that is exhibited here regarding ethical breaches in academia, to ethical breaches in our highest levels of government: Supreme Court ethics violations and out-in-the open grifting of a president while in office (see thread on new House report on payments to Trump by foreign entities while he was president).

This has been a great and eye-opening discussion, but I don't get why some forms of cheating are more bothersome to people than other types.

Trump is being prosecuted in several courts. Gay isn't. It's hard to understand your point.

Trump is not being prosecuted for ethics violations--he is being prosecuted for criminal ones. This discussion is about ethics violations.

That's because courts don't prosecute ethics violations. I think you're being rhetorical and trying to redirect away from the topic and focus on your favorite boogeyman, since discussions of antisemitism reveal the hypocrisy of DEI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suggest Dr. Gay is being held to a “standard” of scholarship that disregards her lived experience and historical trauma. These heteronormative outdated standards based on Judie-Christian dogma, reinforce whiteness, serve to promote capitalism, and strengthen the patriarchy.
What is needed is a inclusive set of standards that better reflect where we should be as a global community.

They're working on it.

I agree, and moreover, even if the plagiarism allegations are true, it makes Gay even more of a heroine because she refused to submit to an inherently racist system. The mere idea that plagiarism can even exist strongly suggests that the "marketplace of ideas" is corrupted by capitalism, since all property ownership is theft. Why should this not extend to *intellectual property* as well? Gay was merely redistributing ideas in an equitable fashion to promote a more racially just society.

Excellent point. Capitalism itself is a western construct that relies on outdated concepts of “individualism” whereas other, more organic, more pure societies embrace a communal existence. Property and ideas that serve the good of the community cannot be simply owned but rather are held in trust by the group as a whole.

Exactly. It costs those other scholars *nothing* but their unearned privilege to share their work with Dr Gay. But rather than amplifying and lifting up a BIPOC, her critics are choosing to perpetuate a colonial oppressor mentality by spreading the falsehood of "intellectual property" and accusing Dr Gay of violating it.

So much work to be done. We have so far to go before people really learn that even the concept of "merit" is based on our cultural values, which cannot be trusted since they were incubated in a hellish cauldron of white supremacy.

Forget the concept of merit. It seems that honesty and integrity are values to be questioned.

Who are we to say what her truth is?

Fair point.

What I don't get is, why doesn't she simply launch and run her own My Truth University as run it like say Liberty U? Why try to hijack Harvard instead?

Because in order to achieve a racially just society, we need to tear down the systems and structures that uphold white supremacy and the patriarchy. It's not sufficient to create new institutions. Existing institutions must be taken over, dismantled, and replaced. This is revolutionary 101 stuff, keep up.

OK, now I get it.

But if that's the goal, why bother with Harvard? Why not simply take over the White House, Congress, the military and the border and to dismantle it all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is called “due diligence.”

Harvard failed in this instance.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. There are many examples of genocide being suggested through signs and symbols. It's not clear that anyone is quoted as saying "let's go genocide all the Jews." So as someone who supports Gay's ouster, her comment that "context matters" is problematic. She wouldn't have said for example, "I don't know why the white supremacists were carrying tiki torches. Maybe they were headed to a luau." But she is defending this kind of behavior when Jews are the target. No Bueno. . .

Just did a very cursory DDG search on Harvard pro Palestinian protest; a few signs read:

“When people are occupied, resistance is justified”

“One solution, Revolution “

“From the River to the Sea”

“We stand with the Palestinian resistance “

“By any means necessary “

“Decolonization is not a metaphor “


Several of these campus slogans are direct calls for genocide (“from the river to the sea” - lifted directly from Hamas: a designated terrorist organization). Others are more subtle calls for violence.

All of these protests violate the standard, which is “hostile learning environment.”

While students must be free to express their views on public university grounds (and they SHOULD be allowed at privates like the Ivies), the slogans above clearly create a hostile learning environment for Jewish students.

The fact these Ivy presidents could not even express opposition to genocide of Jewish people is enough to justify their complete dismissal. In Gay’s case, she was not even docked pay; she was merely moved around among the Harvard elite.

If “from the river to the sea”, which is also in the formation documents of the governing party of Israel as a call for Israeli rule over the same territory (thus constituting a call for genocide of all Palestinians, by your logic), is legitimately objectionable on those shaky grounds, then the very existence of Zionism is also a call for genocide of all Palestinians, too, right?

So given that, why is there complete silence around the “hostile learning environment” created by every student, faculty member and staff at these institutions who supports Zionism in any way, shape, or form?

The stated, immutable aim of Zionism is indivisible Jewish dominion (by an immigrant population) over the region through forced displacement (removal or death as acceptable means) of the indigenous population.

Zionism = Genocide, yet we seemingly cannot tackle that one